Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
There we go! Christ, that was like getting blood out of a stone. Well done. You have finally contributed something useful to the discussion.

So, rather than Trump's golf trips costing ten times as much as the Mueller probe, they've only cost four and a half times as much. Good to know.

It's amazing how conversations can actually be facilitated when you simply provide sources honestly, isn't it? You might want to try it without capering around like a fool, next time.
Click to expand...

It amazes me that after a poster provides links to the actual sources where the data can be confirmed using second grade math and other posters deliberately refuse to do so, that the original poster is falsely accused of not providing sources “honestly.” My favorite part was where a poster claimed that the figures that were in the documents that I linked were not in the documents that I linked. Such honest

And so it goes.

By the way? Seth lied. Because that was the figure from March. Remember?
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
It amazes me that after a poster provides links to the actual sources where the data can be confirmed using second grade math and other posters deliberately refuse to do so, that the original poster is falsely accused of not providing sources “honestly.” My favorite part was where a poster claimed that the figures that were in the documents that I linked were not in the documents that I linked. Such honest

And so it goes.

By the way? Seth lied. Because that was the figure from March. Remember?
Click to expand...

Are running commentaries on other posters your major contribution here?
 
Ziggurat said:
The crime only exists because of the investigation. Absent the investigation, there would be no crime.
Click to expand...

But that's a bit like saying a store "created" a break-in, because absent the store, there would be no break-in.

Yes, the FBI asking a question is necessary for the crime of lying to them to occur, but the act of lying creates the crime. Leaving an opportunity or even a motive for a criminal to break a law does not create a crime. If you extrapolate that logic, then most victims "create" the crime they're victimized in.
 
Ziggurat said:
You are correct. And that was one of the main arguments used in his defense.
Click to expand...

It was petty crap, no whitewater corruption, no Vince Foster murder. If the Congress wanted to impeach Clinton because of his treatment of women, they should have gone that route.

What is your point?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
This is naive. If you misremember something, then you can get in trouble. If the FBI concludes that the truth is something other than you think it is, you can get in trouble. If the FBI is wrong about what the truth is, you can get in trouble. Just telling the truth doesn't actually suffice to protect you. Only not talking does.
Click to expand...
What a crock of believing-Giuliani ****. Not all of us are that stupid.

That's not what is happening and the only people being fooled by this want the alt-reality to be the truth.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Clinton's impeachment happened before I joined this forum, so it's never been that much of a topic of discussion. But setting aside your hyperbole, you're wrong. I think impeaching Clinton was a mistake...
Click to expand...
Of course it was a mistake. This is completely different and anyone thinking it's analogous to Trump's crimes is living in lala land.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
But not every such act involves any underlying criminal act. In this case, it didn't.
Click to expand...

Could you manage more than a sentence and a half to answer my request? Are you saying that the criminal act of lying to the FBI should only count if the lie is specifically about a question relating to a crime you're accused of committing?
 
Belz... said:
Could you manage more than a sentence and a half to answer my request? Are you saying that the criminal act of lying to the FBI should only count if the lie is specifically about a question relating to a crime you're accused of committing?
Click to expand...

No. I'm saying that nailing people for lying to the FBI shouldn't be one of the primary tools in the FBI's toolkit. It shouldn't dominate the number of convictions they obtain, particularly in these sort of fishing expedition investigations. There's a very strong aspect of "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" with how the FBI operates.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Of course it was a mistake. This is completely different and anyone thinking it's analogous to Trump's crimes is living in lala land.
Click to expand...

We weren't talking about Trump's alleged crimes, but about perjury accusations. Trump hasn't been charged with any crimes at all, or even accused of such by the FBI or Mueller. So that is indeed quite different than Clinton.
 
Ziggurat said:
We weren't talking about Trump's alleged crimes, but about perjury accusations. Trump hasn't been charged with any crimes at all, or even accused of such by the FBI or Mueller. So that is indeed quite different than Clinton.
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with this. Papadopoulos was jailed because he withheld important information that the FBI didn't know.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. I'm saying that nailing people for lying to the FBI shouldn't be one of the primary tools in the FBI's toolkit. It shouldn't dominate the number of convictions they obtain, particularly in these sort of fishing expedition investigations. There's a very strong aspect of "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" with how the FBI operates.
Click to expand...

To be clear, you are claiming that the majority of crimes the FBI gets a conviction for are actually 'lying to the FBI' charges? Do you have any evidence for this claim?
 
For those that think that Trump may have colluded with Russia to gather dirt on his opponent, I'd like to ask how they feel about HRC and the DNC hiring an ex foreign agent to travel to Russia and speak with Russian agents and contacts to get dirt on Trump? Are the two comparable? Would that be considered collusion if it were Trump? (explain why if so)
 
River said:
For those that think that Trump may have colluded with Russia to gather dirt on his opponent, I'd like to ask how they feel about HRC and the DNC hiring an ex foreign agent to travel to Russia and speak with Russian agents and contacts to get dirt on Trump? Are the two comparable? Would that be considered collusion if it were Trump? (explain why if so)
Click to expand...

Trump took (or planned/conspired to take) the dirt as a gift, which is where the illegality lies.

It sets up a quid pro quo relationship with a foreign national.

Going to the open market and paying someone to go out and find similar dirt is not illegal.
 
wareyin said:
To be clear, you are claiming that the majority of crimes the FBI gets a conviction for are actually 'lying to the FBI' charges? Do you have any evidence for this claim?
Click to expand...

In general? No, of course not.

In this specific case, of the 8 non-Russians charged so far as a result of the Mueller investigation, 5 of them have been charged with making false statements, and for three of them that was the only charge.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/21/us/mueller-trump-charges.html
You can quibble about how exactly you want to do the counting, so if you want to say that's not a majority because you want to count the number of crimes charged rather than the people, go ahead. That's not a fight worth having to me. But such a heavy reliance on process charges is troubling.
 
Ziggurat said:
In general? No, of course not.

In this specific case, of the 8 non-Russians charged so far as a result of the Mueller investigation, 5 of them have been charged with making false statements, and for three of them that was the only charge.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/21/us/mueller-trump-charges.html
You can quibble about how exactly you want to do the counting, so if you want to say that's not a majority because you want to count the number of crimes charged rather than the people, go ahead. That's not a fight worth having to me. But such a heavy reliance on process charges is troubling.
Click to expand...
How many of those 5 are now reported as cooperating with the investigation? Did they get charged with these "process crimes" in order to avoid more significant charges? And, finally, who the **** cares? The only way your objection makes any sense is if somehow these criminals were forced into making false statements. If one can't tell the truth, one should shut their stupid Republican mouth.
 
River said:
For those that think that Trump may have colluded with Russia to gather dirt on his opponent, I'd like to ask how they feel about HRC and the DNC hiring an ex foreign agent to travel to Russia and speak with Russian agents and contacts to get dirt on Trump? Are the two comparable? Would that be considered collusion if it were Trump? (explain why if so)
Click to expand...
Given I understand the difference as do most clearly thinking individuals, I don't have a problem.

Would Clinton have been beholden to the UK? To Fusion GPS? To Mr Steele?

Do you understand the difference in the law between the two cases?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom